intrusion’: Mosley v UK (Application No 48009/08), 10 May 2011 at 104. In a real sense, therefore, it could be said that there was nothing left for the court to protect by an injunction. 19. Here, the Internet allegations prayed in aid by Mr Spearman took place after the order was made. Different policy considerations come into play when the court is invited to abandon the protection it has given a litigant on the basis of widespread attempts to render it ineffective. Furthermore, unlike the Mosley case, there is no doubt other information that Ms Thomas could yet publish, quite apart from this claimant’s identity, which is not yet in the public domain. The injunction thus continues to serve a useful purpose, from the claimant’s point of view, for that reason alone, since she is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court. Otherwise, he would not seek to maintain it. 20. Mr Spearman’s application is therefore quite narrow. He seeks only to vary the injunction so as to permit the claimant to be identified. …” In the circumstances, Eady J held that even identification should not be permitted. It will be apparent that the circumstances in CTB bore some relevant similarities to those of the present case. In particular, reliance was placed on internet disclosures subsequent to the original injunction in support of an application to set aside the injunction on the basis that it served no further useful protective purpose. This situation was distinguished in principle from that where an injunction is granted after substantial internet disclosure. The substantial internet disclosure which had occurred after the injunction was not regarded as justifying the lifting of the injunction. The injunction, enforceable against the defendant, was seen as continuing to serve a useful purpose. 29. As to the general suggestion that injunctions really have no sensible place in an internet age, Eady J said: “23. It is important always to remember that the modern law of privacy is not concerned solely with information or ‘secrets’: it is also concerned importantly with intrusion. … [That] also largely explains why it is the case that the truth or falsity of the allegations in question can often be irrelevant: see eg McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73 at 80 and 87. Page 18